Negotiation and Conflict

Negotiation and Conflict

Introduction

The successful negotiators recognized the way they behave which does not involve or reflect their true feeling or their intension. During negotiation, a person should look for win to win solution. When a person selling a particular product, it is general that the buyer will be looking for the lowest price. In order words, the lower costs and lower payments. A successful negotiation involves compromise from both sides. Both side should loss and gain something. One cannot win on the bases of possessing negotiating skills or forceful compel on logic. Good negotiation is not an immaterial thing rather a range of outcomes do exits.

In this paper, we will the how the negotiation process takes place in the practical life, resolve the problem through bargaining in order to reach on a mutual agreement that benefit both parties (Tabtabai & Thomas, 2004).

Discussion

Conflict Management

There has been less analysis of interstate conflict negotiations, because there have been fewer interstate wars in the postwar and especially post-Cold War period. Parties to interstate conflicts enjoy formal equality as states, and usually in the post-World War II era their existence is not in question in the conflict; they will continue to exist when the war is over and the conflict is only one of their concerns. That said, their levels of power and commitment may vary greatly, leading to a greater or lesser degree of asymmetry. Much of the work that has been done on negotiating interstate conflicts focuses on territoriality, as discussed in the chapter by Vasquez, and on asymmetry, which is also an angle used by research on war itself. Studies of war asked why weak states attack, attributing the decision to imperfect information (Paul 1994); studies of negotiation ask how weak states can win something, and often a lot, attributing the result to strategies of borrowing power and of phasing, as already discussed. Negotiations to end interstate wars, whether mediated or direct, generally tend to be conflict-driven and depend on the elements of ripeness to be perceived before they can begin; thereafter they tend to stop at agreeing formulas, sometimes surprisingly long-lasting, rather than being able to reach into the basic issues to come up with a resolving formula for agreement (Betancourt, 2004).

Intrastate conflict negotiations are characteristically asymmetrical, both informally in regard to power and formally in regard to status. In the first, the rebellion opposes its commitment to state power and its fixation on the conflict an existential struggle to the state's many other problems; in the second, it seeks recognition as spokesman for its cause, denying the state legitimacy as national authority, and status as an equal (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2001). Recognition is necessary for negotiation; negotiation confers recognition. This situation constitutes the major obstacle to substantive negotiating, and once it is overcome, the parties can begin discussing the range of issues lying between integration and independence or takeover. A whole range of intermediate solutions various forms of autonomy, executive, and legislative power-sharing, elections is available for ...